WooCommerce: Get customer report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the fallback to a customer list when the reports endpoint is unavailable — an agent knows it may receive list-shaped data instead of statistics. It stops short of covering period defaults, date range interpretation, or pagination/size of the result, so the behavioral picture is incomplete for a reporting tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return content and fallback behavior; nothing is padded. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is mild internal noise that adds no meaning for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned data (count and spending). However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the absence of any date-range or period semantics leaves a real gap an agent would hit on first invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden for site, period (default "week"), date_min, and date_max — yet it mentions none of them. The meaning of "period" versus an explicit date range, and the accepted date format, are left entirely unstated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get customer statistics report") and adds what the tool actually returns: customer count and spending data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like woocommerce_list_customers or woocommerce_get_customer, but the "statistics report" framing is specific enough that an agent can tell the aggregate tool apart from single-customer retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over woocommerce_list_customers or woocommerce_get_customer, and no prerequisites or scope conditions are given. The fallback sentence describes runtime behavior, not selection criteria, so an agent must infer that this is for aggregate reporting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.